Section 9 of Procedure 411 also stipulates that if the account holder or beneficiary, directly or indirectly, is a corporation, reasonable measures must be taken in order to determine the true identity of the people behind the corporation. In addition, in the case of a "chain" of companies, it is necessary to determine who is the head of the group. In addition, Section 9(c) of Procedure 411 states that:
"A banking corporation that has reason to believe that it wishes to open a bank account has been refused to receive banking services in another banking corporation, for reasons related to the prohibition of money laundering or terrorist financing, shall apply strict examination procedures in opening an account for that customer."
Moreover, Section 14 of the Procedure discusses the ongoing monitoring and stipulates in clause (a) that : "A banking corporation shall monitor the activity in a customer's account in order to decide whether it is in line with its expectations regarding the activity in the account and with its familiarity with the customer, its business activity and its risk profile and, if necessary, the adequacy of the sources of funds in the account." " Actions that lack economic or business logic, complex operations, transactions of considerable scope, and in particular cash deposits in amounts that are inconsistent with the expected activity in the account"
In the framework of Section 15 of the Procedure, it was determined that the Bank would designate accounts as accounts at risk, taking into account the type of business that is the subject of the account (for example, a business with a lot of cash activity), the customer's location (high-risk countries, no connection to Israel), the types of services consumed by the customer (electronic transfers of large sums, etc.) and the types of customers (public figures, complex ownership structures, etc.).
- It should also be noted that both in the document published by the Money Laundering Authority on September 2, 2015, and in the document of the Supervisor of Banks dated November 23, 2016, a series of "red flags" were detailed, which should be considered, with regard to the customer or his activity, as indicating the need for a special examination or investigation. It was further clarified that the existence of only one red flag does not necessarily indicate a risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, provided that there is a satisfactory explanation for this activity. At the same time, it was determined that the more red flags there are in the activity, the greater the concern that it is money laundering or terrorist financing.
The red flags relevant to the discussion before me, which were detailed in the framework of the Money Laundering Authority's document, are: "The client received part of the business service from another business service provider that did not complete the handling of the matter, refused to provide the requested service, or the relationship with another business service provider was terminated";